Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery

We've published a gallery of 23 images shot with the Nikon J1. We've shot a selection of images using the Nikon J1 - the simpler of the company's two 'Nikon 1' cameras. Combined with the 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, we've taken a variety of real-world images in a variety of light conditions. Given all the controversy the J1 and V1 have generated, we thought it made sense to look at some of its images. We've also included 5 raw files for you to examine.

Samples gallery

There are 23 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Comments

Build quality is up to the big FX cousins, feels quite sturdy and have a nice magnesium finish. Lenses are OK ( build quality wise) but don't have the same feeling as the camera. Camera body is a bit heavy and feels better in hand with 10-100 than with 10-30. Autofocus is great and feels very fast, even when set to Auto AF, and could lock even onto dark corners of the store without hunting. ( seems faster than my D300, but i may be wrong)

PSAM mode is in the menu :( ...why they did not put it on the same wheel?

After selecting A mode, you can change aperture easily using the switch, same for shutter priority ... etc.

Viewfinder...ok, not there yet :D IQ... I just cannot judge the IQ in the store and such short time.Nikon F - adapter. Will be available in December and will Autofocus with AF-S lenses. ( Nikon representative)

If anyone visits Prague this week, head on to FotoSkoda and you can test it by yourself.

Looks like we'll have to wait for DPreview to incorporate these new Nikon Series to their system, so we can compare the final images along with those of other camers and see for ourselves the differences.

Personally I think Fujifilm's X Series are the best on high ISO performance.And I very much doubt that there is going to be a camera that is going to beat them. At least up to now in their category, the performace talks by itself.

See the ISO comparison charts:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmX100/page11.asp

One of some concerns about this new cam is the lack of DOF. I was wondering if this cam never can take a photo with a nice bokeh?On Nikon's site,there are some sample photos. Scroll down till you see a butterfly shot.

This one photo clearly shows that V1/J1 can take a photo with a beautiful bokeh. I just don't know if smart photo selector will always produce a photo like that or not. Probably not. But at least,with the right lens,the right settings,it could produce a good DOF.

DOF only depends on the absolute diameter of the lens opening. So, to match the pretty bokeh of a $30 manual focus 58/2.0 lens on a DSLR, these little Nikons would need to have an aperture of f/0.34 at 10mm, f1.0 at 30mm (this is close to the 58mm lens on an ASP-C body) and f/3.5 at 100mm. Good luck with that... at any price.

DOF only depends on the absolute diameter of the lens opening. So, to match the pretty bokeh of a $30 manual focus 58/2.0 lens on a DSLR, these little Nikons would need to have an aperture of f/0.34 at 10mm, f1.0 at 30mm (this is close to the 58mm lens on an ASP-C body) and f/3.5 at 100mm. Good luck with that... at any price.

I'm not sure these sample photos do the camera justice. To my eye, some are quite over exposed and don't represent the camera properly. Not just a bit over, quite a bit - blown highlights. When using any auto mode, at least 30% of the shots will need exposure comp. The button is on the back dial, right under your thumb... why not use it? Then you can't blame the over exposure on the camera ;-)

under dozens of flash strobe in a lab test, every big, small even tiny sensor look similar good, but use it under real world situation, poor lights, dim light moon lights, the comparison will be day and night difference

Those who claim this J1 / V1 image is good enough to compete with other EVIL should check their eyes or stop drink that kool aid. Tried the imaging resource comparison between J1 and G12 (yes prosumer G12) and its evident that the bigger sensor slightly win and the smaller sensor (G12) lose. Compare the J1 image to the same price range (and size) NEX-5N and oh boy, stark different in image quality, dynamic range, noise etc. This arguably proved that the bigger the sensor, the better the image quality, but why bother with smaller sensor if the body and the lenses are similar in size? The argument that smaller sensor would effected the body and lenses should not be mention because of physics. You just can't make ultrawide lenses small, if you want ultra wide in Nikon 1 system you at least should make 5mm and of course with bright f (1.8-2), guess what, that lens gonna be big, well enormous to be precise.

There's a reason why 50mm lenses is always smaller than the wider lenses with the same max. aperture for the same system. the 24mm lens with f 1.4 always gonna be bigger than 50mm with f 1.4 at the same lens system. For tele it's a slightly different because after 50mm, the more focal range (50 and up) with the same max. aperture get bigger (also the filter size). In medium format (645) the normal lens (80mm) also has the smallest than the wider or the longer (with the same max. aperture). There's some physic principles applied there.

So my argument is, why you have to have small sensor system if you can't get the body and more importantly, lenses, utterly smaller than the 4/3 or APS size sensors? They probably slightly, very slightly smaller than the bigger sensor but it's really negligible. That 10-100mm f3.5-5.6 lens with 72mm filter size for example, what an enormous lens! And V1 or J1 use that lens would be a joke. Not to mention that AFS 300mm 2.8 attached. Are you havin a laugh?

Exactly it's not the sensor most people have a problem with. It is the camera they put it in. If this sensor was in a fixed lens compact the size of a S95 or even a G12 it would have been seen as a major advancement. Instead, by putting in camera size that typically has a bigger sensor and charging an obscene price for it, they have just made the whole 1 series camera line a joke.

The only people who won't realize that the can get a similar sized camera with a better sensor for less money are the ones who would never spend the kind of coin Nikon is asking for on a camera.

A case of 'the pot calling the kettle black' - those NEX lenses are enormous. A smaller sensor will always mean that the the lens is smaller but not necessarily in proportion as there are some fixed sized parts relating to the AF mechanism and other functions.

I agree with you. This camera is quite capable. If I get this cam,I will mount my 300mm f/4-AFS on this cam to see how fast AF is. On spec,it's the fastest AF in the world,much faster than D3s. If that claim is true,then Nikon just masde one special cam. I'm a bird shooter so AF speed IS the important.My D300 performs well but faster AF will always help catch a subject.

Some image samples were not taken in an ideal light conditition. Nikon always handle noise better than other makers so I don't worry about it.

Nobody owns this camera,yet. So how can you make rude comments on this new cam without shooting with this cam? But this is not new. It's been like that at Dpreview for a long time.

810mm is nice to think about, but for actual bird photography I find the 300mm and a 1.4 TC sometimes too much, so I often just go with the 300 for 450mm equivalent. I believe a better lens for this little camera would be the 70-200 (old version). That should be a great bird setup, and focus would be faster. Wow, 190-540mm f2.8. Killer. And for nesting birds add the TC1.4E. Oh crap. Now I'll have to buy this camera.

Oh sweet Jeebus... People actually think a body of this size is going to be convenient with a 70-200/2.8? :D Also, it takes a religious fanatic's attitude to think that the contrast, sharpness and AF accuracy is going to be even remotely DSLR class.

Have done some comparisons of RAW files of the 'still life' studio scene from imaging resource (sorry dpreview) with the E-PM1 and the Nikon J1 noise performance is almost identical at ISO 1600 and 3200 except the shots are slightly softer from the J1. For consistency, I used DCR with the RAWDrop front end application for conversion of both formats.

So, the lenses for the J1 must be awful, as the Olympus XZ1 looks better at 100-400, on par at 800 and is better than the XZ-1 at higher ISOs. The XZ-1 has a faster lens and would likely be used at lower ISOs than a J1 for any given situation, of course.

Getting increasingly fed up with the comments whinging about sensor size and images quality. To me, I'm thinking about the possibilities offered by a very small, fast shooting camera.Anyone old enough, or wise enough, to remember if Oscar Barnack and Leica were derided for using such 'small' film...

I'm not crazy about DPR, but there is "critical", and there is just plain "rude". DPR posted some images, and they are better than those I found on another site, particularly the high ISO stuff. If you want something to your liking, pony up the money and buy your own. It will be available soon enough. Or spend all your time trying to talk other people out of buying it, if that floats your boat.According to specs this new camera has the best AF system of any mirrorless, and perhaps better than some DSLRs (5DII perhaps). It remains to be seen, but I think maybe the nasty criticism might be premature.Personally, I'll hang on to my NEX 5N for awhile. But this camera is interesting.

It seems to me that DPR is being very biased on the new Nikon 1. If you remember back when the Nex 3/5 first came out, DPR gave them very low scores (65 or 66% I believe), then after a firmware upgrade, the score went up to 70%.

Here are a few quotes from the Nex 3/5 review:

…We weren't impressed with the cameras when we first encountered them but an unexpectedly significant firmware update has dramatically improved the shooting experience for enthusiast users…Where the NEXs really impress is the PASM modes where you can take full advantage of the large, very capable sensor…

Well, the Nikon 1 does not have PASM modes or a large very capable sensor, and no firmware upgrade will ever fix that.

So if DPR uses the same logic and reviews the Nikon V1 from the same perspective as they did the Nex 3/5, then you would logically expect a score <65%.

Don’t count on it, DPR is clearly is biased and I'm betting they will give the Nikon 1 a 70% +

I actually think the Nikon 1 will be a quite capable tool for the intended market segment. It really does seem to address issues for that crowd.

All I'm saying is if DPR reviews the Nikon 1 from an "enthusiast" photographer perspective, the lack of some basic controls that the "enthusiast" market segment expects, should get the Nikon 1 a low grade.

If you review if from the P&S perspective, it should probably get a high score for every thing but value, and then it will be quite a dance to get it the score to 70%, but you will surly pull it off. I'm waiting to be entertained on the creative scoring.

Cameras are available with sensors varying in size. What I don't get is why some insist that cameras with the smallest size sensors (example Pentax Q) are equal in image quality to M4/3 qnd DSLR. Who buys a camera and says "if only it had a smaller sensor I would love it!"?

It must have torture for the engineers on this project. Creating all of this great tech (10fps, electronic shutter, decent 1600 ISO) and to know that it was go to be wasted on a sensor too small to compete. No one will buy a $900 dollar camera that cannot perform basic DOF control.

Now that I have hardly examined the 28 random images of a brand new camera I have never actually used or even seen in real life I am now fully capable of making educated decision that I will share with all the world. Further more my total lack of experience in testing cameras and the limited experience I have in using my own qualifies me as fountain of information.

Here is the one iota of information I have been able to extrapolate from the nearly 300 post. No of you know anything. Since you have no practical experience with the camera you are simply guessing. Lie to yourself and the rest of us if you need to but the reality is none of have any experience with this camera.

He didn't say "wrong." "Right" is also possible. However, in the absence of experience and/or knowledge, right and wrong are more a matter of luck than of genius. We're having lots of fun debating, but we are not in a position to prove anything, or know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, we can firmly hold onto our beliefs with all the courage dogma provides.

Everyone keeps saying "wow, those high ISO photos are excellent for a camera with a small sensor". The thing is, you can get cameras like the Nex 5N with a bigger sensor, that is cheaper and gives much better results at much higher ISO levels.Also, everyone is talking about ISO and DOF - what about the colour? Am I the only one who thinks the colours, especially the reds (and in particular on the ketchup bottle) look really washed out? And the WB! All the shots look like they were taken through a blue filter!On its own this might stand up, but next to m4/3 and NEX, this brings too little too late. All the magic tricks it does might be great, but unless the IQ is there it's a bit "fur coat and no knickers".

If putting the largest possible sensor in the smallest possible body was the only objective, the Sony NEX cameras would be big winners. But it's the size of the package, not the size of the body, that buyers are interested in. When you put a big honking lens on a tiny body, you end up with a big honking package.

right, just like this system, once you put zoom lenses (or, as they said they would, put F-mount lenses with adapter) you'll ended up with a big honking package, with tiny sensor and worse ISO 1600 images.

for generations IQ meant intelligence quotient, whilst the IQ of this new system looks promising I have grave reservations about the IQ of many of the Dpreview posters. It seems many haven't even bothered to go to the NIkon site and look at the MTF plots of these new lenses, some of which are stunning. Unlike Alvis 11 who seems to show an above average IQ many display the intellectual capacity of a drunken amoeba.

Ok, & the Verdict is in--It sucks. I'm not sure why these camera manufactures are making these compact interchangable lens cameras? Is it because they need a new market to fix their P&S which are becoming extinct because of Smart Phones that can take near as good of pictures as them? Or is it a genius idea that they hope that thos people will fall in love with and better P&S camera and like the advantages of interchangible lens cameras and be more likely to buy a real DSLR some day?

Nikon, Pentax, and other shortly I assume, are responding to local markets in Japan, where there is a glut of miniaturized everything. Since Japan is a huge market for camera manufacturers, their response is only logical. I only wish they'd spend more time developing mirrorless cameras with a viewfinder and an APS-C or micro 4/3 sensor. That said, however, each tool in the photographic arsenal has it's place. Read the next reply to glean some useful comments along those lines.BAB

More to the point, do camera manufacturers really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Seriously though, camera manufacturers make interchangeable lens compacts because it lets them sell a product at a higher price point than a conventional compact; camera buyers pay that premium because they like the idea of swapping lenses, although in practice they never buy a second lens. That's why these new cameras exist. There's a lot of guff about image quality and depth of field and so forth, but in the real world people buy on looks and price.

You might have the illusion from reading comments threads like this that the majority of camera buyers care about shadow noise, CA and so forth; but we are a tiny, tiny minority, a thing scattering clustered from all over the world.

At last, somebody who gets it. Gosh, they might have to sell 3 of these little guys to make as much as they do on a D700! And wait until the limited edition paisley ones come out (Japan only, Nikon US will not service). Not only does mediocrity rock; it's a hell of a lot more profitable than perfectionism.

I welcome that Nikon has simply produced another useful tool. A nearly complete and well thought system infact. The only missing thing is a good ultra-wideangle which I am looking forward for exploring the extra DOF on offer. I think the IQ and noise are not an issue both theoretically and especially after seeing these samples. I use compacts (Panasonic and Fuji), Olympus M4/3, Nikon DX and FX cameras. I still use film. All systems have their use and I use them all. Now I am just curious to see what the V1 and its CX format allows me to do in the real world. That's all there is to it folks. Cameras systems are just tools.

Images are horrible IMO.. I dont see at a glance any difference between a P&S. No interesting DOF or anything. Maybe it was a case of "whos behind the camera-itis. I can post unedited images from my d700 and it will at least make you want to click on it.

m4/3 and p&s lenses are designed to resolve to their sensors, which F lenses also are of course. I happen to own a 24Mp full frame camera and can see it outresolving everything but my most expensive pro glass (300/2.8, 85/1.4 etc). 24Mp in APS-C is absolutely insanely much, and the V1 sensor is as you point out even more densely packed.

And the proponents of this as a tele camera are not pro glass users but rather "look now my old 300/4 will be a 810/4".

I just don't see that happening, but of course, digiscoping was in vogue once too...

About the "my old 300/4 will be a 810/4", I agree that if people then use their 300/4+v1 to shoot subjects from a longer distance and still by handholding, will be disappointed with stability problems and the increase of DOF.

Still, consider the case of birders that used their 300/2.8, say from a hide, but had to crop pictures in PS because the bird was too far (happens all the time for wildlife). With a V1 on the same lens, and from the same distance, they should be able to get more detailed images, without cropping in PS, and with no DOF increase.

When they photograph ketchup bottles and chubby chicks jeans in bright 12 noon light, it wouldn't matter if they had used a Hasselblad. The images would have still been bad. But this has little to do with the camera. Sample on Nikon USA look quite good, even though there is slight smearing due to high ISO NR.

For this camera to compete with M43, Sony, or Samsung it would need to have better images, be smaller, and/or be cheaper than these cameras. The Nikon cameras are have lower image quality, are bigger and are more expensive, which makes them a non-starter.

The only think going for this camera is that it has "Nikon" printed on the front. If Samsung had made this camera would anyone be paying attention, aside from derisive laughter?

The E-P3 with EVF is DSLR size and not even close on IQ, it has no phase detect AF, but people are buying that. Only the NEX 5N can match a DSLR IQ, and it is pretty large as well. The X100 is a boutique camera with a fixed lens (the same thing that killed rqange finders long ago). The GH2 does great movies, but it is DSLR size, again without the IQ. I don't know if comparisons like these can actually be used to predict sales.

When I look at the pictures I think the whole time that a am looking at a crop from a tele lens . It has nothing to do with sharpness of contrast but just the total impression. Even with the times square shot. Perhaps it is the wide height scale of the standing pictures.

It doesn't have "no DOF". To the contrary, it has a great deal of it. That's part of the point. The people whom this camera is targeted at don't want blurry pictures. They want as much in focus as possible. How could you miss something so obvious?

I finally get it! Nikon was innovative. They have carved out a niche between point-and-shoot cameras and m4/3d's. They are not competing against anyone. It's a new camera system built around a new size sensor. This explains why many people are confused and disappointed. It is a new category we are not familiar with. I thought they were going to one-up micro 4/3rds but they went the other direction.It would have saved us much discussion if they just came out and said 'this is a point and shoot camera with interchangeable lenses'. Maybe then we would have been blown away. Maybe next year they will come out with a new sensor that will be somewhere between APS-C and Full Frame. That way I can get one step closer to full frame (I have money but not that kind of money). Let's see the progression: we have CX = 1" sensor, DX = APS-C sensor, FX=Full Frame Sensor. So the sensor between the DX and FX must be called the EX. Cant' wait! Hope we can all get some sleep now.

That would be Canon's 1.3-crop APS-H format... But then it's so close to 35mm format that there's no point in designing lenses that are specific for it. Rumors are that Canon's getting rid of APS-H in the next iteration of its DSLRs.

I'm not as impressed by either the Pentax-Q or this Camera in their attempt to make a mini DSLR that can shoot as good as “A” DSLR. They chose one of the ugliest places to shoot and it's really hard to tell what this camera is really capable of, but, under similar light and gloom—it’s not anywhere near most APC-S sensor DSLR in terms of image quality. I’ve seen some really good samples of the Pentax-Q that would challenge this camera on IQ, but we really need a side-by-side comparison test to crown a champ. In briefly reading up on these two cameras that Nikon and Pentax make considering the build quality, design, features, I tip my hat to the Q over the J1, but I’m not surprised because Pentax spent a considerable amount of money and time building there Q.

I really have no issue with the size of the sensor. However, this market segment is about making different compromises to get the right balance of size, image quality and price.

Image quality aside, the sacrifice that Nikon made in the area of sensor size here doesn't seem to translate to significant gains in the other aspects such as a smaller size or lower price (than competing NEX or m43 cameras). This makes one wonder, why bother with such a considerably smaller sensor then?

The NEF so called RAW files are almost totally devoid of chroma noise at high ISO (no sensor is that good) meaning that they have been processed to remove this and you can see some artifacts from this process. So, you may hope to get better images from the RAW than the JPEG from the camera but perhaps not have as much control as you want for noise reduction.

Having said that, those high ISO images are pretty good for a sensor of that size but overall M4/3 images are better IMHO.

I tried to open those NEF RAW file with my Nikon Capture NX 2 (bundle with Nik ColorEfex Pro), it was not supported at the moment. I then open the NEF file with Nikon ViewNX 2 on my calibrated 2560x1440 resolution monitor, I like what I saw especially on ISO-3200 RAW file, the noise is cleaner and seems better than my now old D300S on image noise.I would guess that once Nikon Capture NX 2 start supporting V1/J1, the software can even do a better job on distortion and Color Moire/auto lateral color abrration control.

Nothing prevents Nikon from using a larger sensor in later "mirrorless" models, but only the current 35mm lenses (or new lenses designed for a large mirrorless camera) would work. How do current lenses work with this camera anyhow - is there a huge muliplier / crop factor?

I've read some criticisms of detail, but taken into PS and sharpened, the detail is certainly there. It's a bit smudged in the high ISO shots straight from camera. I wonder how ACR will do with the raws?! Tempted to download the Capture NX trial, but I suspect that will be the frustrating crap it has always been...

Its easy to get lost in comparisons of 'sharpness' and 'quality' when you benchmark cameras against each other. The initial benchmark that needs to be established in with the tried and true 35 mm format that was popular years ago. I think today's pocket cameras are constantly being rushed to the market..a marketing department approach. There is such a vast range of quality all all price points. All additional features of video and such distract from what ultimately makes a good camera at any price point: Optics, Build Quality and Ultimately the results (influenced by 'in-camera' processing). Older point and shoot 35 mm cameras could produce incredible prints up to 20 x 30 based on the film utilized, (asa 50, 64 or 100) - and of course, optics. This fact needs to be kept in mind even though we have progressed to a digital era. Then we would have a proper perspective in conducting reviews and making assessments. Just a primer for thought....

I'd like to see a comparison done for real. Hmm. I wonder if I know anybody with a 35-point and shoot that still works? Most people have thrown away their throw-away cameras!

My educated guess is that the pocket 35 cams won't compare too well at reasonable apertures. A comparison I did years ago of 35mm negative to my D2x left me stunned at how much the digital images surpassed what I could get from Reala 100 with the same lenses.